Some feedback from the measures list. I asked (ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, Meta, Gemini) if I was missing anything.
Below is a short list of additional commonly cited metrics or frameworks that you might consider, beyond those already in your list. Some of these are “journal-level” and others are “researcher/article-level,” but all are widely referenced in academic circles (including medical research).
Eigenfactor Score analyzes the entire network of citations (similar to PageRank) to estimate the importance of a journal in the scholarly landscape.
Article Influence Score is derived from the Eigenfactor framework but focuses on measuring the average influence of individual articles in a journal (comparable to how Impact Factor or CiteScore focus on articles per journal).
Source: Eigenfactor.org (Uses citation data, historically from the same dataset that powers Journal Citation Reports).
Key Point
These metrics emphasize the “network value” of citations (where a citation from a highly influential journal counts more than one from a less influential journal).
Source: Developed by the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden University; uses Scopus citation data.
What It Measures: SNIP corrects for differences in citation practices across disciplines, making it more field-normalized.
Key Point: This helps compare journals from fields with different citation cultures on a more “apples-to-apples” basis.
Source: Part of Elsevier’s SciVal/Scopus analytics.
What It Measures: Compares the actual number of citations received by an entity (e.g., article, researcher, institution) with the average number of citations for similar publications (same field, document type, and publication year).
Key Point: Very commonly used at the institutional or researcher level to show whether citations are above or below the expected global average for a given field.
Source: Clarivate (Web of Science), introduced in 2021.
What It Measures: A field-normalized metric at the journal level, showing how the journal’s articles perform on average relative to global citation performance in the same category.
Key Point: A “1.0” JCI means the journal’s articles are cited at the global average; above or below 1.0 indicates higher or lower citation performance, respectively.
Source: Proprietary to the ResearchGate academic social network.
What It Measures: A combination of citations, reads, recommendations, and other indicators of user engagement.
Key Point: Although widely recognized among some researchers, it is not traditionally viewed as an “official” or standardized academic metric in the same sense as Impact Factor or h-index.
Source: Elsevier’s “Plum Analytics,” which aggregates a range of altmetrics.
What It Measures: Collects data on usage (clicks, downloads), captures (bookmarks, favorites), mentions (news, blogs), social media (tweets, Facebook), and citations.
Key Point: Similar in spirit to Altmetric Score, aiming to track the “online footprint” of research outputs.
Source: Google Scholar.
What It Measures: The number of a researcher’s publications with at least 10 citations each.
Key Point: A simpler, less formal variant of the h-index; often overshadowed by the h-index but still included in many Google Scholar profiles.
Your existing list already covers many of the most common metrics in medical/biomedical research (e.g., Impact Factor, CiteScore, NIH’s Relative Citation Ratio, Altmetric, and various Chinese citation indices). If you want to be extra thorough, consider whether you also need:
Eigenfactor / Article Influence Score (journal-level influence via network analysis)
SNIP (field-normalized journal metric, from CWTS/Leiden)
FWCI (field-weighted article-level or researcher-level measure in SciVal/Scopus)
Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) from Clarivate (field-normalized, journal-level)
ResearchGate Score (not an official scholarly metric but common on academic social media)
PlumX Metrics (altmetrics aggregator by Elsevier)
Google Scholar i10-index (an additional basic researcher-level index)
Depending on your use case (journal evaluation vs. article-level impact vs. researcher productivity), some of these may be more relevant than others. But these are the most frequently mentioned measures you might still consider including.
o1
=============================================================================================================================
I've reviewed your list of academic measures related to medical research. You've compiled a comprehensive collection of important metrics, but I can suggest a few additional measures that might be valuable to include:
Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) - This Scopus metric normalizes citations based on discipline, publication year, and document type. An FWCI of 1.00 represents the world average, making it useful for cross-disciplinary comparisons.
Article Influence Score (AIS) - Part of Clarivate's Journal Citation Reports, it measures the average influence of a journal's articles over the first five years after publication.
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) - Created by CWTS at Leiden University, this metric normalizes citation impact by accounting for differences in citation practices between scientific fields.
Eigenfactor Score - Available through Clarivate's JCR, it rates the importance of a journal based on the number of incoming citations, with citations from highly-ranked journals weighted more heavily.
PlumX Metrics - Similar to Altmetric but provided by Elsevier, tracking usage, captures, mentions, social media, and citations across various platforms.
Journal Acceptance Rate - Though not citation-based, this provides valuable context about publication selectivity and competition.
Open Access Citation Advantage (OACA) - Measures the potential citation advantage of open access publications compared to paywalled content.
NIH Percentile - For NIH-funded research, grant applications receive a percentile rank that reflects their relative merit compared to other applications.
Your existing list covers most major citation metrics very well, particularly with the inclusion of international measures like CSCD and CSSCI. These additions would round out your comprehensive overview of academic research metrics.
================================================================================================================================
You've provided a comprehensive list of academic measures relevant to medical research. It appears you've covered many of the major areas. However, to ensure you've considered all key aspects, here are a few additional measures and concepts that are often used in evaluating medical research:
Author-Level Metrics:
g-index: This index is similar to the h-index but gives more weight to highly cited articles. A g-index of 'g' means the top 'g' papers have received at least 'g^2' citations. It can highlight researchers with a few very influential papers.
m-index: As mentioned in one of the search results, the m-index is the h-index divided by the number of years since the researcher's first publication. This attempts to account for the career length of a researcher, allowing for comparison between researchers at different stages.
Total Number of Publications: While not indicative of impact alone, the total number of peer-reviewed publications reflects a researcher's productivity.
Number of First/Last Author Publications: In many fields, the first and last authors are considered to have made the most significant contributions. Tracking these can be important.
Corresponding Author: This indicates the researcher responsible for communication about the paper.
Journal-Level Metrics (Beyond those listed):
Eigenfactor Score: This score, based on Web of Science data, attempts to measure the overall importance of a journal by considering the number of incoming citations, with citations from highly influential journals weighted more heavily. It also considers a longer citation window (5 years).
Article Influence Score: Also from Web of Science, this score measures the average influence per article in a journal over a 5-year period after publication.
Article-Level Metrics (Going beyond basic citation counts and Altmetric):
Usage Statistics (Downloads, Views): Many publishers provide data on how often articles are downloaded or viewed, which can indicate interest in the research.
Number of Comments/Discussions: On some platforms, the level of discussion or commentary an article receives can be a measure of its engagement within the academic community.
Inclusion in Clinical Guidelines or Policy Documents: This signifies a direct impact on practice or policy. Tracking if and how research findings are incorporated into such documents can be a powerful measure of translational impact.
Broader Impact and Engagement:
Number of Patents Resulting from Research: This indicates potential for commercial application and innovation.
Influence on Policy: Evidence of research being cited or used in government reports, policy briefs, or legislation demonstrates a broader societal impact.
Media Mentions: While captured by Altmetric, specifically tracking the type and reach of media coverage can provide insights into public engagement.
Public Engagement Activities: Documenting activities like public lectures, science communication events, or involvement with patient advocacy groups can showcase broader impact.
Contributions to Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Highly cited research often gets included in these synthesis papers, indicating its importance in the broader evidence base.
Other Considerations:
Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI): Offered by Scopus, this metric normalizes citation counts by comparing them to the average number of citations for publications in the same field and year. This allows for more direct comparisons across different disciplines.
Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI): Similar to FWCI but provided by Web of Science.
Open Access Status: The accessibility of research can influence its reach and potential impact. Noting whether publications are in open-access journals or repositories can be relevant.
Data Sharing: The availability of underlying research data can promote reproducibility and further research.
Team Science Metrics: For collaborative research, metrics that assess the impact of research teams or the interconnectedness of researchers can be valuable.
In summary, while your list is very good, consider whether you also need to track:
More nuanced author-level metrics like the g-index and m-index.
Additional journal-level metrics such as Eigenfactor and Article Influence Score.
Article usage statistics and engagement beyond citations.
Evidence of broader impact, including patents, policy influence, and public engagement.
Field-normalized citation metrics for cross-disciplinary comparisons.
The specific measures that are most important will depend on the context of your evaluation and what aspects of research impact you wish to emphasize. Good luck with your analysis!
============================================================================================================================
Your list of academic measures related to medical research is quite comprehensive and covers a wide range of citation-based metrics, influence scores, and alternative measures commonly used in the field. However, there are a few additional measures and considerations that could enhance your coverage of major metrics, especially in the context of medical research. Below, I’ll highlight potential additions and refinements without repeating your full list:
Potential Additions:
Eigenfactor Score
Description: A citation-based metric that measures the overall influence of a journal by considering not just the number of citations but also the "quality" or influence of the citing journals. It uses a network-based approach (similar to Google’s PageRank) and adjusts for differences in citation patterns across disciplines.
Source: Available through Clarivate’s Journal Citation Reports (JCR).
Access: Proprietary; requires subscription or permission.
Relevance: Useful in medical research to assess journal prestige beyond simple citation counts.
Article Influence Score
Description: A companion to the Eigenfactor, this metric normalizes the Eigenfactor Score by the number of articles published in a journal over a five-year period, providing a per-article influence measure.
Source: Clarivate’s Journal Citation Reports (JCR).
Access: Proprietary; requires subscription or permission.
Relevance: Complements your inclusion of RCR and Impact Factor by offering another angle on article-level impact.
Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI)
Description: A metric from Scopus (Elsevier) that compares the citation performance of an article, journal, or researcher to the expected citation rate for similar publications in the same field, year, and document type. An FWCI of 1.0 means the item is cited at the global average; higher values indicate above-average impact.
Source: Scopus database.
Access: Single usage is free; extensive use may require permission.
Relevance: Particularly valuable in medical research for normalizing citation counts across subfields with varying citation norms (e.g., clinical vs. basic research).
PlumX Metrics
Description: An alternative metric suite (owned by Elsevier) that tracks a broader range of impact indicators beyond citations, including usage (views/downloads), captures (bookmarks), mentions (news/blogs), and social media engagement. It complements Altmetric Scores.
Source: Available through Scopus or Plum Analytics.
Access: Free for single use; extensive use may require subscription.
Relevance: Adds granularity to your Altmetric Score entry by focusing on additional usage data, which is increasingly relevant in medical research dissemination.
Journal Impact Factor Without Self-Citations
Description: A variant of Clarivate’s Impact Factor that excludes self-citations (citations from the same journal) to reduce potential inflation of the metric.
Source: Journal Citation Reports (JCR) by Clarivate.
Access: Proprietary; requires subscription or permission.
Relevance: Provides a more conservative estimate of journal impact, which can be critical in evaluating medical journals with high self-citation rates.
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)
Description: A Scopus metric that measures a journal’s citation impact while normalizing for differences in citation potential across fields. It accounts for how frequently papers in a field are cited, making it more comparable across disciplines.
Source: Scopus database (Elsevier).
Access: Free for single use; extensive use may require permission.
Relevance: Useful in medical research where citation practices differ between specialties (e.g., oncology vs. public health).
Dimensions Citation Metrics
Description: A free alternative to Scopus and Web of Science, Dimensions (by Digital Science) provides citation counts and other analytics for publications, including medical research articles. It also integrates altmetrics and funding data.
Source: Dimensions database (https://app.dimensions.ai/).
Access: Free basic access; advanced features may require subscription.
Relevance: Broadens your coverage by including an open-access tool that’s gaining traction in research evaluation.
F1000Prime Recommendations
Description: A qualitative measure where experts in biomedical fields recommend and rate articles based on significance and quality. Scores (e.g., "Good," "Very Good," "Exceptional") are assigned, offering a peer-driven complement to quantitative metrics.
Source: Faculty Opinions (formerly F1000Prime).
Access: Subscription-based, though some content is free.
Relevance: Unique in medical research for capturing expert opinion rather than just citation data.
Observations on Your List:
Comprehensive Coverage: You’ve already included key players like Impact Factor, CiteScore, RCR, h-index, SJR, and Altmetric Score, which are widely recognized in medical research evaluation.
Google Scholar Metrics: You’ve covered h5-index and h5-median well, but you might clarify that Google Scholar Metrics are journal-level only and don’t provide individual article scores (unlike iCite’s RCR or Altmetric).
Chinese Metrics: Including CSCD and CSSCI is a great addition for global scope, though they’re less commonly used outside China—perhaps note their regional dominance explicitly.
Medline: Your description is accurate, but you could mention its role as a quality filter rather than a direct impact measure, distinguishing it from citation-based metrics.
Suggestions for Refinement:
Categorization: You might group your measures into buckets for clarity (e.g., "Citation Counts," "Journal-Level Metrics," "Article-Level Metrics," "Alternative Metrics") to ensure all major types are represented.
Missing Open-Access Metrics: Tools like Dimensions or CORE (for open-access repositories) could round out your list if you want to emphasize freely available options.
Author-Level Metrics: Beyond h-index, you could add i10-index (Google Scholar: number of papers with at least 10 citations) or m-index (h-index adjusted for career length) for a fuller picture of individual researcher impact.
Conclusion:
Your list is already robust and covers most major academic measures in medical research. Adding a few of the above (e.g., Eigenfactor, FWCI, SNIP, or PlumX) would ensure you’ve captured nearly all widely used quantitative and alternative metrics. If your goal is exhaustive coverage, these additions would fill any minor gaps. Let me know if you’d
==============================================================================================================================
You've compiled an impressive list of academic metrics related to medical research. To ensure you've covered all major measures, let's review and expand upon your list:
Citation Metrics
You've covered citation counts, Relative Citation Ratio (RCR), and citation-based influence scores, including Impact Factor (IF) and CiteScore.
Other notable mentions:
Eigenfactor Score: measures the total importance of a journal, considering the prestige of citing journals.
Article Influence Score: measures the average influence of a journal's articles, based on citations.
Journal Metrics
You've covered Impact Factor (IF), CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), and h-index.
Other notable mentions:
Journal Citation Indicator (JCI): a new metric from Clarivate, providing a normalized citation impact across disciplines.
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): measures the contextual citation impact of a journal, considering the citation patterns in its field.
Author Metrics
You've covered h-index and Google Scholar Metrics.
Other notable mentions:
i10-index: measures the number of publications with at least 10 citations.
g-index: measures the largest number of papers with at least that many citations.
Alternative Metrics (Altmetrics)
You've covered Altmetric Score.
Other notable mentions:
PlumX Metrics: measures the impact of research outputs, including citations, social media, and more.
Crossref Event Data: tracks events related to research outputs, such as citations, bookmarks, and shares.
Regional Metrics
You've covered Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) and Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI).
Other notable mentions:
Indian Citation Index (ICI): a database of Indian journals, providing citation metrics.
SciELO Citation Index: a database of Latin American and Caribbean journals, providing citation metrics.
Other Metrics
You've covered Medline classification.
Other notable mentions:
DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) metrics: provides metrics for open-access journals.
CORE (COnnecting REpositories) metrics: provides metrics for open-access repositories.
Your list is comprehensive, but there are a few additional metrics that might be worth considering. However, it's essential to note that the importance and relevance of each metric can vary depending on the research field, region, and specific goals.